On The Distribution of Spouses

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Modern healthcare at all is a rejection of national selection. Being rich shouldn't give you an exemption to pass on your defective genes if we accept the principle.

This is why arguments from nature don't really apply to modernity.

No, it really isn't. Natural selection is not something you can reject any more than breathing. What modern healthcare does is modify what parameters are important for the selection process moving it away from genetic predisposition toward good health and toward other factors like wealth, intelligence, ability to earn money etc. The process is still happening.

Well, natural selection is being rejected for another reason; we're now able to hack it through genetic engineering.

[Scomagia]

No, it really isn't. Natural selection is not something you can reject any more than breathing. What modern healthcare does is modify what parameters are important for the selection process moving it away from genetic predisposition toward good health and toward other factors like wealth, intelligence, ability to earn money etc. The process is still happening.

Well, natural selection is being rejected for another reason; we're now able to hack it through genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering is not a rejection of natural selection, unless you think everyone is going to (A) have equal access to the technology, and (B) engineer themselves with the same genes.

If access to genetic engineering is unequal because of wealth or other factors then those with access will become disproportionately successful compared to those without access, which will make them more attractive mates and make them better able to survive disease, injury, etc.

If people pick and choose what genes to engineer then those who choose more adaptive traits will experience greater success and less injuries, disease, and so on.

All of that sounds a lot like natural selection to me. Just because we can tamper with our genome doesn't mean that we are going to transcend evolutionary pressure. We can round off some of the edges and make the less competitive more competitive by reducing things like heritable disease and injury but that isn't the same as flattening the field entirely.The idea that humanity is uniquely capable of extricating itself from the forces of natural selection is hubris.

[Xmara]

Or nasty/mean to other people, because while you're treating them like dirt, I'm wondering when I'll be next.

Just use your womanity to calm his darkest tendencies.

It sounds like the opening line from a terrible romance manga fan-fic: "He was seeking the woman who could calm his darkest tendencies...and alas, in the dark world into which he was born, this was not accomplished stochastically...."

Not even manga. Sounds like a bad romance in general.

Actually it sounds like the plot of Twilight. I think. Never bothered with it.

Also I now have "Bad Romance" stuck in my head.

[Katganistan]

It's not so important to me.

You don't consciously consider it to be important or a factor, but there is a subconscious part of your partner selection process that factors in physical attractiveness. Unwittingly playing into female stereotypes aside, who you chose to pursue interest in further is always going to be partially or even subconsciously completely determined by how attractive they are. Humans treat attractive people better than unattractive people. Everyone is guilty of this.

How amazing that you could be so completely wrong about what I do or don't find attractive. And how condescending of you to tell me that I am wrong about who I find attractive.

What I definitely don't find attractive: mansplaining and/or dismissing what I've had to say.

[Katganistan]

Or nasty/mean to other people, because while you're treating them like dirt, I'm wondering when I'll be next.

Just use your womanity to calm his darkest tendencies.

It sounds like the opening line from a terrible romance manga fan-fic: "He was seeking the woman who could calm his darkest tendencies...and alas, in the dark world into which he was born, this was not accomplished stochastically...."

Naw, if I wanted to raise children, I'd have them.
Grown-ass men should be able to refrain from temper tantrums or nastiness.

[Hatterleigh]

If you think about it, Incels are pretty much the socialists of the Chad-Beta ideological spectrum

[Fartsniffage]

You don't consciously consider it to be important or a factor, but there is a subconscious part of your partner selection process that factors in physical attractiveness. Unwittingly playing into female stereotypes aside, who you chose to pursue interest in further is always going to be partially or even subconsciously completely determined by how attractive they are. Humans treat attractive people better than unattractive people. Everyone is guilty of this.

How amazing that you could be so completely wrong about what I do or don't find attractive. And how condescending of you to tell me that I am wrong about who I find attractive.

What I definitely don't find attractive: mansplaining and/or dismissing what I've had to say.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong with what you think you're saying here, And here is why........

[Vadkness]

Another point is that this system goes against one of the most basic evolutionary human behaviours: find partners with good genes.
What defines "good genes", varies from person to person, for example, someone may find blonde hair a 'good gene' while another may deem humour or charitability good (or a combination). Humans select sexual partners based on their definition of "good genes" in hopes of having children who share those good genes (there is, of course, the rabbit hole of asexuals and those who simply don't want children - there is nothing wrong with being either of those, however my point is that typically this is how humans are, you guys are just an exception that don't really pick a hole in my point when humans don't think that way on the whole.)

If you're an obese unemployed man who doesn't shower or clean his room and spends his time complaining about how women owe him sex but he gets none so he is so oppressed (a.k.a INCELs), I hate to break it to you but you've got no good genes. At all. You scare me.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Well, natural selection is being rejected for another reason; we're now able to hack it through genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering is not a rejection of natural selection, unless you think everyone is going to (A) have equal access to the technology, and (B) engineer themselves with the same genes.

If access to genetic engineering is unequal because of wealth or other factors then those with access will become disproportionately successful compared to those without access, which will make them more attractive mates and make them better able to survive disease, injury, etc.

If people pick and choose what genes to engineer then those who choose more adaptive traits will experience greater success and less injuries, disease, and so on.

All of that sounds a lot like natural selection to me. Just because we can tamper with our genome doesn't mean that we are going to transcend evolutionary pressure. We can round off some of the edges and make the less competitive more competitive by reducing things like heritable disease and injury but that isn't the same as flattening the field entirely.The idea that humanity is uniquely capable of extricating itself from the forces of natural selection is hubris.

Genetic engineering is a rejection of natural selection as it can directly insert new genes into a human. Also, you're assuming that only human genes can be added - that is false, completely foreign genes could be added to a human's genome. Combined with biomechanical enhancement of the human body such as medical nanobots, humanity can completely override natural selection.

And about my "assumptions" you stated: a) I'm not assuming there will be equal access, however that doesn't mean genetic engineering will remain exclusively for the rich - for example, decades ago only the rich could afford primitive mobile phones, but now more than half of Earth's population has a modern mobile phone. b) Why even would everyone engineer themselves with the same genes as everyone else? That doesn't change anything.

[Katganistan]

How amazing that you could be so completely wrong about what I do or don't find attractive. And how condescending of you to tell me that I am wrong about who I find attractive.

What I definitely don't find attractive: mansplaining and/or dismissing what I've had to say.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong with what you think you're saying here, And here is why........

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Terrible idea, but if you write this dystopia into a novel I'd happily read it.

I agree with this.

But if the OP is being serious, then no. Arranged marriages should not be enforced by the state. People should not be forced to be in a relationship if they don’t wish to be. That is state sponsored rape.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Terrible idea, but if you write this dystopia into a novel I'd happily read it.

I agree with this.

But if the OP is being serious, then no. Arranged marriages should not be enforced by the state. People should not be forced to be in a relationship if they don’t wish to be. That is state sponsored rape.

Tbh, extramarital affairs would become extremely common in that system. very few people would willingly stay together with someone who they were forcibly partnered with by some government lottery.

[Costa Fierro]

How amazing that you could be so completely wrong about what I do or don't find attractive.

Who a person shows interest in is going to be determined by physical attraction. Part of what keeps a person in a relationship with someone is physical attraction, because you can only discover a person's personality and personal qualities after meeting them and getting to know them.

And how condescending of you to tell me that I am wrong about who I find attractive.

That would be true if I was doing either. I can be condescending if I want to, just like I can tell you who you find attractive is wrong, should I feel the presence of mind to do so. I said that physical attractiveness plays a factor in determining who you find attractive.

What I definitely don't find attractive: mansplaining and/or dismissing what I've had to say.

Why did you post stating your belief that you don't consider physical attraction important when virtually every study says that it is?

[Saiwania]

If you're an obese unemployed man who doesn't shower or clean his room and spends his time complaining about how women owe him sex but he gets none so he is so oppressed (a.k.a INCELs), I hate to break it to you but you've got no good genes. At all. You scare me.

All of that can be changed and are choices, rather than it being anything inherent to that person such as being only 5 feet tall. People often don't make the most rational decisions, so natural selection as you call it; probably isn't actually as powerful as you'd think at excluding "bad genetics." Genetic engineering can be seen as almost being the same thing, only it is more precise as opposed to being more random and arbitrary.

[Costa Fierro]

Another point is that this system goes against one of the most basic evolutionary human behaviours: find partners with good genes.
What defines "good genes", varies from person to person, for example, someone may find blonde hair a 'good gene' while another may deem humour or charitability good (or a combination). Humans select sexual partners based on their definition of "good genes" in hopes of having children who share those good genes (there is, of course, the rabbit hole of asexuals and those who simply don't want children - there is nothing wrong with being either of those, however my point is that typically this is how humans are, you guys are just an exception that don't really pick a hole in my point when humans don't think that way on the whole.)

If you're an obese unemployed man who doesn't shower or clean his room and spends his time complaining about how women owe him sex but he gets none so he is so oppressed (a.k.a INCELs), I hate to break it to you but you've got no good genes. At all. You scare me.

Considering ugly people exist, not to mention the existence of hereditary conditions which affect anything from brain development to your intestinal system functioning property, and the existence of genetic cancers, the idea that finding good genes kinda falls flat.

[Katganistan]

How amazing that you could be so completely wrong about what I do or don't find attractive.

Who a person shows interest in is going to be determined by physical attraction. Part of what keeps a person in a relationship with someone is physical attraction, because you can only discover a person's personality and personal qualities after meeting them and getting to know them.

And how condescending of you to tell me that I am wrong about who I find attractive.

That would be true if I was doing either. I can be condescending if I want to, just like I can tell you who you find attractive is wrong, should I feel the presence of mind to do so. I said that physical attractiveness plays a factor in determining who you find attractive.

What I definitely don't find attractive: mansplaining and/or dismissing what I've had to say.

Why did you post stating your belief that you don't consider physical attraction important when virtually every study says that it is?

Because, and here is the part that you don't seem to be able to comprehend, so let me put it into the simplest terms possible:

I

Personally

As an Individual

Do not

Consider

Conventional views

of Attractiveness

as a Reason

to Choose Someone

as a Mate.


I

Personally

As an Individual

Consider

Intelligence

Humor

Kindness

and the ability to take care of their own issues

as my criteria for what makes a good mate.


I don't think there are any overly complex words in there, so if you aren't able to parse my meaning, that's your problem.

[Scomagia]

Who a person shows interest in is going to be determined by physical attraction. Part of what keeps a person in a relationship with someone is physical attraction, because you can only discover a person's personality and personal qualities after meeting them and getting to know them.



That would be true if I was doing either. I can be condescending if I want to, just like I can tell you who you find attractive is wrong, should I feel the presence of mind to do so. I said that physical attractiveness plays a factor in determining who you find attractive.



Why did you post stating your belief that you don't consider physical attraction important when virtually every study says that it is?

Because, and here is the part that you don't seem to be able to comprehend, so let me put it into the simplest terms possible:

I

Personally

As an Individual

Do not

Consider

Conventional views

of Attractiveness

as a Reason

to Choose Someone

as a Mate.


I

Personally

As an Individual

Consider

Intelligence

Humor

Kindness

and the ability to take care of their own issues

as my criteria for what makes a good mate.


I don't think there are any overly complex words in there, so if you aren't able to parse my meaning, that's your problem.

No one said that you don't have your own individual criteria for a mate. However, consciously or not, attractiveness factors into everyone's choice of mate. This includes you, whether you like it or not. That's all that's been pointed out to you.

[Salandriagado]

Because, and here is the part that you don't seem to be able to comprehend, so let me put it into the simplest terms possible:

I

Personally

As an Individual

Do not

Consider

Conventional views

of Attractiveness

as a Reason

to Choose Someone

as a Mate.


I

Personally

As an Individual

Consider

Intelligence

Humor

Kindness

and the ability to take care of their own issues

as my criteria for what makes a good mate.


I don't think there are any overly complex words in there, so if you aren't able to parse my meaning, that's your problem.

No one said that you don't have your own individual criteria for a mate. However, consciously or not, attractiveness factors into everyone's choice of mate. This includes you, whether you like it or not. That's all that's been pointed out to you.

It seems to me that you have asserted it repeatedly, but provided precisely zero evidence for your claim.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No one said that you don't have your own individual criteria for a mate. However, consciously or not, attractiveness factors into everyone's choice of mate. This includes you, whether you like it or not. That's all that's been pointed out to you.

It seems to me that you have asserted it repeatedly, but provided precisely zero evidence for your claim.

https://www.livescience.com/58607-mens- ... ality.html

Researchers asked young women (ages 15 to 29) to choose potential dates from a series of photographs and descriptions, while the women's mothers (ages 37 to 61) were asked to select possible boyfriends for their daughters using the same information. Results showed that a man's looks influenced both groups of women more strongly than his personality profile. This held true even if a man's profile was filled with highly desirable personal qualities, such as being respectful, honest and trustworthy.
...

The study suggests that women value physical attractiveness in a potential mate far more than they say they do, said study author Madeleine Fugère, a professor of social psychology at Eastern Connecticut State University in Willimantic.

...

The results showed that as long as a man was considered attractive or moderately attractive, both mothers and daughters would pick the guy who had the most desirable personality traits. But when an unattractive male was paired with the most highly desirable personality profile, neither daughters nor mothers rated him as favorably as a potential romantic partner, compared with better-looking men with less desirable personalities.

Both young women looking for men and mothers seeking boyfriends for their daughters consider a minimum level of attractiveness to be an important criterion in a potential mate, the researchers concluded.

[Scomagia]

No one said that you don't have your own individual criteria for a mate. However, consciously or not, attractiveness factors into everyone's choice of mate. This includes you, whether you like it or not. That's all that's been pointed out to you.

It seems to me that you have asserted it repeatedly, but provided precisely zero evidence for your claim.

While I can already guess what your response will be, let me just say that I am posting from a cell phone and hunting sources is fairly difficult. You can cut me some slack here and do the legwork yourself, or you can take this as my failure to defend my argument. Whatever works for you.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

It seems to me that you have asserted it repeatedly, but provided precisely zero evidence for your claim.

https://www.livescience.com/58607-mens- ... ality.html

Researchers asked young women (ages 15 to 29) to choose potential dates from a series of photographs and descriptions, while the women's mothers (ages 37 to 61) were asked to select possible boyfriends for their daughters using the same information. Results showed that a man's looks influenced both groups of women more strongly than his personality profile. This held true even if a man's profile was filled with highly desirable personal qualities, such as being respectful, honest and trustworthy.
...

The study suggests that women value physical attractiveness in a potential mate far more than they say they do, said study author Madeleine Fugère, a professor of social psychology at Eastern Connecticut State University in Willimantic.

...

The results showed that as long as a man was considered attractive or moderately attractive, both mothers and daughters would pick the guy who had the most desirable personality traits. But when an unattractive male was paired with the most highly desirable personality profile, neither daughters nor mothers rated him as favorably as a potential romantic partner, compared with better-looking men with less desirable personalities.

Both young women looking for men and mothers seeking boyfriends for their daughters consider a minimum level of attractiveness to be an important criterion in a potential mate, the researchers concluded.

I would be suspicious of such a study, unless I was given extensive information about its methodology. More often than not, such studies are conducted without proper methodology, but they easily make headlines in non-academic media sources, as the public finds all the (pseudo-)scientific studies about juicy topics such as love and sex very intriguing.

Some potential problems I can see here are:

1) The operational definition of "physical attractiveness"

If you are making claims based on women's likelihood to choose an attractive man over unattractive ones, you must have specified beforehand who counts as attractive and who doesn't. And this should not be based on your subjective judgment, of course. The proper, relatively unbiased method would be to distribute these guys' pictures to a group of women who are roughly the same age as the women tested in the study (but who constitute a distinct group) and let them rate the physical attractiveness of these guys. (Just that. No info about their personality or anything else.)

Then you could have a ranking for these men along the scale of physical attractiveness, and the ensuing study could have a semblance of scientific rigor, at least.

2) Claims about women's honesty when they say they don't value physical attractiveness

The article you quoted says: "women value physical attractiveness in a potential mate far more than they say they do."

You cannot really suggest that unless you have asked the participants in this study whether they value physical attractiveness. There may well be a sampling bias such that the women who participated in your study were the ones who valued physical attractiveness. Perhaps if you had asked them about this, they would have truthfully said that they liked men with good looks. The crux of the matter is that we do not know if the researchers really tested the women who said they did not value physical attractiveness. Did they give them a questionnaire before the test and asked them to indicate their preferences there? If not, the study is moot. It's just using a click-bait line to attract readers.

3) Personality traits

Finally, there are many pitfalls as far as personality traits are concerned. While the article explicitly mentions the positive personality traits used in the study (e.g., respectful, honest, trustworthy), it does not overtly state what the negative personality traits were. This is potentially important, as people might differ in the degree to which they consider a certain trait to be negative. For example, deceitfulness is a negative trait, and so is aloofness. But if it were up to me, I would rate deceitfulness as a much worse trait than aloofness. In fact, aloofness can even be considered to be a positive trait by some people, as they might perceive it to be a sign of earnestness, high self-confidence, or a tendency to remain unmoved by intense emotions, etc. And they might consider this to be a desirable trait for a man - you never know.

In that case, it is no surprise if a woman chooses an attractive & aloof man over an unattractive & amiable man, for instance.

Just as I argued for physical attractiveness, there should have been a pilot study for determining these adjectives beforehand, possibly by giving an independent group of women of comparable age a questionnaire where they rate how positive or negative the given traits are, on a scale of -5 to +5, for instance.

--------------

These are some potential pitfalls I can see by looking at that brief article, and there are possibly other questionable points if one reads the original article.

I would recommend that one should always take such "polemical" studies with a grain of salt. I know these topics are highly popular, because the public is interested in them, and writing papers about these topics gives researchers the publicity they seek and makes it easy for them to find funding for their future studies - but unfortunately, scientific precision and good methodology are often neglected in these studies. (And I am saying this as someone who is interested in reading social psychology papers.)

[Costa Fierro]

Because, and here is the part that you don't seem to be able to comprehend, so let me put it into the simplest terms possible:

I

Personally

As an Individual

Do not

Consider

Conventional views

of Attractiveness

as a Reason

to Choose Someone

as a Mate.


I

Personally

As an Individual

Consider

Intelligence

Humor

Kindness

and the ability to take care of their own issues

as my criteria for what makes a good mate.


I don't think there are any overly complex words in there, so if you aren't able to parse my meaning, that's your problem.

Physical attractiveness is a factor in who you chose as a partner. Physical attractiveness is a factor in what keeps you with them.

[Ethel mermania]

Because, and here is the part that you don't seem to be able to comprehend, so let me put it into the simplest terms possible:

I

Personally

As an Individual

Do not

Consider

Conventional views

of Attractiveness

as a Reason

to Choose Someone

as a Mate.


I

Personally

As an Individual

Consider

Intelligence

Humor

Kindness

and the ability to take care of their own issues

as my criteria for what makes a good mate.


I don't think there are any overly complex words in there, so if you aren't able to parse my meaning, that's your problem.

Physical attractiveness is a factor in who you chose as a partner. Physical attractiveness is a factor in what keeps you with them.

Yet ugly people get laid all the time.

[Scomagia]

Physical attractiveness is a factor in who you chose as a partner. Physical attractiveness is a factor in what keeps you with them.

Yet ugly people get laid all the time.

Presumably because the people who fuck them don't find them all that ugly.

[Ethel mermania]

Yet ugly people get laid all the time.

Presumably because the people who fuck them don't find them all that ugly.

True, it's only in some people where the ugly goes deep down to the bone.